CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St James Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included safe admissions, visitor arrangements, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
St James Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It focused on how the home was preventing and managing coronavirus infections.
Inspectors were assured that the home admitted people safely, used protective equipment properly, carried out testing, and followed social distancing and shielding rules. They also found suitable arrangements for visitors and for isolating people who might have symptoms.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Safe admissions
New people were required to have a negative COVID-19 test and were isolated for 14 days. The home had rooms and designated staff ready for people who developed symptoms.
“The provider followed current guidance when admitting new people into the service.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visits used a booking system and a dedicated area. Visitors were tested, given infection control instructions and required to use protective equipment.
“There were appropriate measures in place to enable visitors to see their loved ones in a safe way.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff had training in protective equipment and infection prevention. They were tested regularly and most had received their first COVID-19 vaccination at the time of the inspection.
“Staff had received donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) training and followed current guidance on the use of PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are new residents still tested and isolated before joining the home?
- 02How are visits arranged now, and are visitors still tested before entering?
- 03How often are staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 04What arrangements are in place for isolating a resident who develops symptoms?
- 05What is the home's current full CQC rating for areas not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess all five areas of care or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2020
St James Court: Rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, with some improvements needed in staffing deployment and dementia support.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines as prescribed, enjoyed the food and had access to health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised and activities were available. The home had effective checks on quality, although inspectors identified some improvements needed in staff deployment, dementia-friendly facilities, safeguarding records and staff supervision.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw kind interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Interactions between people and staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely, given as prescribed and recorded correctly in the records checked. Staff responsible for medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored safely and securely, administrated as prescribed and disposed of properly.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care records included people's histories, likes, dislikes and current support needs. An activity programme offered regular activities, outings and seasonal events.
“Care records were person centred and contained information about the person's social history, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had regular audits, action plans and an open culture. Inspectors rated Well-led Good, improving from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
“The service had an open, positive culture.” from the report
Staff deployment at busy times
needs fixingThere were enough staff overall, but they were not always deployed effectively during busy periods. Some people had to wait for support at lunchtime.
“over lunch time we saw some people had to wait to get the support they needed from staff.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorThe home had signs and pictures to support people living with dementia, but inspectors said it would benefit from further features such as tactile displays and rummage boxes.
“the service would benefit from further development to better meet the needs of people living with dementia” from the report
Safeguarding records
needs fixingSafeguarding concerns were recorded and action was taken when needed, but the action and outcome were not always recorded. There was also no analysis of safeguarding concerns at the time.
“However, the actions and outcome of each concern was not always recorded.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorStaff received support, but supervision did not always happen as often as the provider's own policy required.
“Although staff did not always receive supervision in line with the provider's own policy of every two months.” from the report
- 01How are staff deployed during busy times, especially at lunchtime, and what has changed since the inspection?
- 02What new features or activities have been introduced to better support people living with dementia?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns, their outcomes and any lessons learned now recorded and reviewed?
- 04How often will staff receive supervision, and how do managers check that this matches the provider's policy?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing and updating their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC key questions, including the premises and the care provided; the previous rating was published on 19 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of St James Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 September 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.